Leveraging the Emerging Space Economy to Meet Critical Government Needs - The shift is underway. Where should policy makers focus their efforts?
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Leveraging the Emerging Space
Economy to Meet Critical
Government Needs
The shift is underway.
Where should policy makers
focus their efforts?
1
LEVERAGING THE
EMERGING SPACE ECONOMY
TO MEET CRITICAL
GOVERNMENT NEEDS
The shift is underway.
Where should policy makers focus their efforts?
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary .......................................................... 3
Introduction..................................................................... 5
Investments In the Future.................................................. 12
U.S. Spaceports .............................................................. 13
Orbital Transfer Vehicles (OTVs) ......................................... 19
On-Orbit Servicing, Assembly & Manufacturing (OSAM) ......... 22
Orbital Refueling............................................................... 26
Deep Space Comms and SDA ............................................ 31
Commercial Lunar Utilization.............................................. 35
Recommendations............................................................. 40
Who We Are.................................................................... 42
2 www.quiltyanalytics.com
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
ROCKET SCIENCE RUT BUILDING A NEW
Stubbornly high launch costs, largely SPACE ECONOMY
unchanged for over 50 years, have been These emerging industries will deliver
the primary barrier to the expansion of the new products and services to Earth (i.e.,
space industry. pharmaceuticals, space-based solar power,
etc.) but will also support self-sustaining
BREAKING BARRIERS economic activities within cislunar space
Over the past decade, launch costs have
and the moon.
been lowered by an order of magnitude,
thus laying the foundation for the LAYING A NEW FOUNDATION
emergence of a new, expansive space Today’s underlying space infrastructure is
economy. insufficient to support the development and
growth of these new, emerging activities
ROLE REVERSAL and industries. The U.S. government,
With this transition, we expect commercial
working in conjunction with private
economic activity to overtake and, in the
industry, should focus its investment efforts
long-term, greatly exceed government
on building the space infrastructure needed
spending on space activities.
to support the future space economy.
EARTH FOCUSED RIDING THE WAVE
Today, the bulk of commercial space
Recognizing the paradigm shift underway,
activities are oriented toward delivering
the U.S. government must decouple from
services (primarily communications and
traditional procurement and regulatory
Earth observation) to customers on
practices and embrace new engagement
the Earth.
models that leverage commercial sector
Innovation and investment to outmaneuver
SLIPPING THE SURLY BONDS
and outpace adversaries.
Enabled by lower launch costs, new and yet
undetermined, industries will emerge in
LEO and cislunar space.
3
U.S. SPACEPORTS OTVS OSAM
SpaceX Moog Northrop Grumman
ORBITAL DEEP SPACE COMMS COMMERCIAL LUNAR
REFUELING AND SDA UTILIZATION
Orbit Fab CommStar Astrobotic
4 www.quiltyanalytics.com
INTRODUCTION
LAUNCHED IN 1906, HMS DREADNOUGHT BATTLESHIP
WAS A TECHNICAL AND DESIGN MARVEL, BRISTLING WITH
LARGE GUNS AND POWERED BY NEW STEAM TURBINE
TECHNOLOGY THAT ENABLED IT TO OUTRUN ALL
EXISTING WARSHIPS.
Overnight, HMS Dreadnought revolutionized naval warfare, rendering obsolete the world’s stock of
capital ships, along with centuries of prevailing naval tactics. In a like manner, SpaceX’s Falcon 9 rocket,
first launched in 2010, has dethroned the industry’s longstanding national oligopolies, shattered price
barriers, and ushered in a new era of commercially driven investment, innovation, and optimism.
Was the Falcon 9 really a “Dreadnought moment” for the space industry? It would be hard to argue with
the numbers. Since 2015, cumulative private investment in the space sector has totaled $16.8 billion, up
from $940 million over the prior decade, while startup activity has exceeded 35 per year since 2015, up
seven-fold from ~5 per year averaged in the 2000s. The pace of technological development, long dictated
by government-funded Programs of Record, has sprinted forward as a spirit of risk-taking opportunism
overtook a stagnant culture of risk mitigation.
Transformative technologies such as optical crosslinks, electronically steered antennas, and on-orbit
satellite servicing – technologies that languished for decades as government-funded R&D projects – are
on the cusp of entering mainstream adoption. Private companies are actively pursuing suborbital and
orbital human spaceflight, more than two dozen are planning commercial moon ventures, and private
industry is investing more than $30 billion to develop LEO broadband constellations.
The implications of this ‘new space era’ will be profound. While government spending still dominates
the industry narrative today, private sector spending will inevitably become the industry’s driving force,
similar to the transition in semiconductor R&D where the U.S. government invested twice that of private
industry 40 years ago but is now outspent by 23:1 (according to the Semiconductor Industry Association).
This commercial paradigm shift represents both an opportunity and a risk for government decision-
makers. The opportunity lies in the commercial sector’s ability to act as both an accelerator and a force
multiplier to government investments. However, profit-seeking commercial efforts will not always align
with government needs and priorities.
How can the government best harness the raw ambitions of the entrepreneurial space community?
While it is important for the government not to pick winners and losers (thus creating a new, dependent,
industrial base), we offer a number of practical steps the government can take to support and promote
space-based activities that not only align with economic and national security priorities but help to
achieve them.
5
SCOPE AND
METHODOLOGY
THE SPACE INDUSTRY WAS BORN OF THE
MILITARY BATTLEFIELD, BROUGHT TO MATURITY
THROUGH THE COLD WAR SPACE RACE, AND
REMAINS TIGHTLY COUPLED TO GOVERNMENT
AND MILITARY AFFAIRS. IN 2019, U.S.
UNCLASSIFIED DEFENSE AND INTELLIGENCE
SPENDING ON SPACE ACTIVITIES TOTALED $23
BILLION, COMPLEMENTED BY AN ADDITIONAL
~$22 BILLION OF NASA SPENDING.
While cognizant of these facts, this report is principally focused on the
trends and growth prospects of the commercial space industry, with an
emphasis on the intermediate future (i.e., 5-10 years). These commercial
actors are responsive to, but not principally focused on national security
concerns. Given the increasingly rapid pace of commercial space
development, many of the technologies and capabilities being applied in
the commercial domain can nonetheless be leveraged for national security
benefit, as outlined herein.
The report’s conclusions do not profess to offer a comprehensive or
conclusive survey of all potential business outcomes but instead reflect
the authors’ institutional knowledge of the commercial marketplace,
supplemented by a limited scope survey of well-placed and experienced
industry stakeholders.
6 www.quiltyanalytics.com
IT STARTS WITH LAUNCH
Futurists, novelists, and the motion picture industry have long portrayed
a confident vision of human activity beyond Earth’s gravity. But 60+ years
after Sputnik 1, this vision is largely unfulfilled.
In 2020, global launch activity reached its highest level since 1990 but still fell below the average annual launch rate from
1965-1985. Every year, more people climb Mt. Everest than have collectively reached space since the era of human spaceflight
began. And, aside from space-to-Earth communications services (TV, broadband, imagery, etc.), the space industry has long
been searching for a new and significant commercial success that can be delivered from space. The chief impediment to
greater commercialization has historically boiled down to one key challenge – the tyranny of high launch costs.
With few exceptions, launch costs to Low Earth Orbit (LEO) have remained stubbornly fixed within a range of
$10,000 to $20,000 per kilogram, whether measured across time, launch vehicle size, or country of origin. The
arrival of SpaceX changed this dynamic.
On the precipice of bankruptcy following the third failed launch attempt of its single-engine Falcon 1 rocket, SpaceX was
rescued by NASA in December 2008 with a $1.6 billion contract to develop a medium lift vehicle (the Falcon 9) and cargo
system for resupply missions to the International Space Station (ISS).
With the shift to the Falcon 9, SpaceX has moved aggressively to drive down launch costs through vertical integration,
automation, reusability, and a high flight rate. The result? The Falcon 9 debuted with a LEO launch cost of ~$5,700/kg, but
by 2015, five years later, SpaceX lowered the cost by more than half (~$2,700/kg) with the introduction of its upgraded “full
thrust” design. SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy cut launch costs in half yet again (~$1,300 kg), and CEO Elon Musk has said that the
company’s forthcoming Starship could eventually lower costs to $10/kg.
7
ESTIMATED MEDIUM/HEAVY LAUNCH VEHICLE COSTS
AT TIME OF COMMERCIAL DEBUT
In addition to dramatically lowering launch costs, SpaceX also rekindled a renewed interest in rocketry,
spurring competitors to announce development plans for no less than 100 new launch vehicles.
While only two of these new launch vehicles have reached orbit, the momentum established strongly
suggests a sustainable trend of increasingly lower launch costs and improved access to space.
8 www.quiltyanalytics.com
IMPLICATIONS OF LOWER LAUNCH COSTS
PUT SIMPLY, LOWER LAUNCH COSTS IMPROVE THE AFFORDABILITY OF CURRENT SPACE
SERVICES WHILE ALSO FACILITATING ENTIRELY NEW BUSINESS MODELS THAT WERE
SIMPLY NOT POSSIBLE AT HISTORICAL LAUNCH COSTS.
This thesis has already proven out in today’s satcom and EO (Earth observation) markets, where a flood of
new companies has entered the market with constellations of lower-cost satellites, challenging incumbents.
A prime example of this trend can be seen in the market for small LEO communications satellites, where
NSR is forecasting annual satellite orders to expand nearly 30-fold by 2023 as compared to the pre-2020
historical average.
While lower launch costs will undoubtedly increase the range and competitiveness of existing satcom and EO
services, the impact of lower launch costs will be most profound on space-based technologies and business
models that have never moved beyond the PowerPoint phase due to unsupportable economics. For some of
these projects, the future is now. But which ones?
With deference to Yogi Berra, it’s tough to make predictions, especially about the future, but there are ample
historic precedents pointing to immense value creation through the opening of new industries. Sticking with an
example close to home, few people would have predicted the economic and societal impact of GPS technology,
which was originally developed by the U.S. Air Force for military navigation and missile targeting. Once opened
for commercial use, GPS has become a pervasive element of consumer/business life, spawning numerous
multi-billion companies.
9
LAYING THE RAILROAD TRACKS
HISTORICAL ECONOMIC PRECEDENTS ARE ANOTHER POINT OF
REFERENCE FOR GUIDING THE GOVERNMENT’S ROLE IN THE
21ST-CENTURY SPACE ECONOMY.
From railroads to aviation and the internet, the government has often been at the center as a customer, regulator, investor,
and sometimes impediment to the development of numerous industries. Historical precedents would suggest that
government support is best optimized when focused on the infrastructure building blocks (i.e., “the railroad tracks”) that help
to de-risk private investments that must inevitably follow.
What are some of the key building blocks of the 21st-century space industry? Or, more appropriately, what are key building
blocks where government support could lead to major advances in space commercialization? It’s a critical question because,
inevitably, government funding decisions are a zero-sum game (i.e., funding Technology A implicitly leaves fewer dollars for
Technology B). And, as noted, well-directed government funding can lead to companies like SpaceX undertaking dramatic
innovations that turbocharge the U.S. industrial base.
Below is a table of space-based technologies that we believe currently have sufficient investment and competition to ensure
a reasonable probability of commercial success. Some of these could still benefit from government support but do not merit
the highest investment priority.
Commercial Startup and Funding Activity of Select Space Industry Technologies
PRE-2010 NEW ENTRANTS POST-2010
Legacy Players Startups Equity Raised ($,M)
OISLs 4 25 $111
Spacecraft propulsion 15 37 $198
Launch Reusability 8 24 $1,570(1)(2)
Flat Panel Antennas 1 19 $612
Small/responsive launch 16 74 $2,718(2)
SAR satellites 5 7 $629
(1) (2)
Excludes SpaceX, which has individually raised $6.4 billion. Relativity Space counted in both sections.
Source: Company reports and Quilty Analytics.
At the opposite end of the spectrum, technologies such as nuclear propulsion and Active Debris Removal (ADR) are often
identified as important to the space age of the 21st century but do not have a viable commercial path without specific
government regulatory changes and/or investments.
As indicated by the graphic below, today’s commercial space economy (A) delivers two services from space – satcom and
EO – which collectively total ~$26 billion in annual revenues worldwide. These industries are well-supported by an industrial
base (B) comprised of satellite manufacturing, launch, and ground equipment. Looking to the future, lower space entry
costs will enable new commercial activities and industries (C) to emerge, extending throughout cislunar space. Today’s space
industrial base, while necessary, cannot sufficiently support these future growth activities. Instead, these activities will require
an entirely new industrial base (D) specifically oriented to the unique challenges of operating in cislunar/lunar environs and
potentially beyond.
10 www.quiltyanalytics.comTHE EVOLVING SPACE INDUSTRY LANDSCAPE
Note: All market size data derived from Satellite Industry Association, 2019.
Source: Robin McDowall/Quilty Analytics.
While certain elements of this infrastructure, such as a cislunar Position, Navigation and Timing (PNT) system
might best default to a neutral government function, we believe the preponderance of these activities can and
should be developed, owned, and operated by commercial entities.
Unfortunately, many of these markets/activities exhibit the classic challenge of chicken or the egg paradox. And,
absent clear market demand or anchor customers, investors are typically wary of “build it, and they will come”
investment strategies. Consequently, there exists a clear and compelling role for government to make targeted
investments, as further enumerated in the recommendation section of this report.
11INVESTING FOR THE
FUTURE
In 2015, Amazon founder Jeff Bezos declared his vision of enabling “millions of people to live and work in space,” while
moving heavy industry off planet Earth. The first step in carrying out that vision – lowering launch costs – has already
made strong gains, albeit not (yet) at the hands of Bezos’s launch company, Blue Origin.
While one can argue with the premise of millions of people in space, there can be little disagreement that the
traditional nature of the space industry has forever changed, and the age of the cislunar economy is within reach.
What role should the government play in bringing about this vision, and where specifically should government
invest? As previously stated, we believe government efforts should primarily be focused on the critical infrastructure
elements that will be necessary to grow the cislunar economy.
OUR ASSESSMENT OF THE INDUSTRY IDENTIFIED SIX PRIMARY AREAS OF
INVESTMENT THAT SPAN FROM DOMESTIC U.S. SPACEPORTS TO THE MOON.
SOME OF THESE FUNCTIONS, SUCH AS SPACEPORTS, ARE INARGUABLY A
GOVERNMENT FUNCTION, WHILE OTHERS WOULD LIKELY REQUIRE A MIXED
GOVERNMENT AND COMMERCIAL APPROACH.
Our rationale for selecting these six areas is subjective and not without reproach. That said, we believe all six
represent necessary areas of focus that hold the potential to benefit government and commercial stakeholders alike.
12 www.quiltyanalytics.comU.S. SPACEPORTS
OVERVIEW
Similar to an airport or seaport, a spaceport is a physical site encompassing a launchpad and/or runway with
support facilities for launching space vehicles. There are currently 22 active spaceports globally, including five
locations in the U.S., that carried out at least one (non-experimental) orbital launch attempt in 2020. Some of these
spaceports support reentries for reusable launch vehicles.
In the U.S., the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is responsible for licensing spaceports and individual launch
attempts, which must be coordinated with adjacent air traffic. There are currently 12 FAA-licensed commercial
spaceports in the U.S., six of which have never successfully completed an orbital launch. Three of these sites
(see table below) are joint-use locations with co-located commercial and federal launch sites, while eight sites are
exclusively commercial. Vandenberg Space Force Base is classified as a federal launch site (i.e., not FAA licensed)
but has supported an average of three FAA-licensed commercial launches per year over the past 20 years.
In addition to these FAA/federal launch sites, there are currently three private spaceports located in the U.S. that
are not licensed by the FAA but are nonetheless subject to FAA launch licensing requirements. Of the three sites,
only SpaceX’s Boca Chica site has been approved to conduct orbital launches (currently capped at 12 per year).
13U.S. Spaceports, License Type,
and 2020 Orbital Launch Attempts
2020
LICENSE ORBITAL
SITE LOCATION OPERATOR TYPE LAUNCHES
MIXED USE (COMMERCIAL / FEDERAL)
Cape Canaveral Spaceport FL Space Florida Horizontal, Vertical 30
Mid-Atlantic Regional Spaceport (MARS) VA Virginia Commercial Space Vertical 3
Flight Authority
Mojave Air and Spaceport CA Mojave Air & Space Port Horizontal 1
FEDERAL
Vandenberg Space Force Base CA U.S. Space Force Vertical 1
COMMERCIAL
Cecil Field Spaceport FL Jacksonville Aviation Horizontal 0
Authority
Colorado Air and Spaceport CO Adams County Colorado Horizontal 0
Houston Spaceport TX Houston Airport System Horizontal 0
Midland Spaceport TX Midland International Airport Horizontal 0
Oklahoma Spaceport OK Oklahoma Space Industry Horizontal 0
Dvpmt. Authority
Pacific Spaceport Complex Alaska (PSCA) AK Alaska Aerospace Vertical 2
Corporation
Space Coast Regional Airport FL Titusville-Cocoa Airport Horizontal 0
Authority (TCAA)
Spaceport America NM New Mexico Spaceflight Horizontal, Vertical 0
Authority
PRIVATE
Blue Origin Launch Site West Texas TX Blue Origin Vertical 0
SpaceX Launch Site McGregor TX SpaceX Vertical 0
SpaceX Launch Site Boca Chica TX SpaceX Vertical 0
While most FAA-certified launch sites can support horizontal launch, there were only two horizontal launch attempts in
2020 – a test flight of Virgin Galactic’s StarShipTwo, and the unsuccessful maiden launch of Virgin Orbit’s LauncherOne.
Horizontal launch presents several benefits, including responsiveness and flexible inclination angles, but there are
currently only two operational air-launched systems, Northrop’s Pegasus and Virgin Orbit’s LauncherOne, both of
which are capable of carrying relatively small payloads (433 kg and 300 kg, respectively) into orbit.
In contrast to the plethora of horizontal launch sites, there are only five FAA-licensed vertical launch sites located in the
U.S. that carry out the preponderance of U.S. launch activity, including all launches above ~400 kg.
14 www.quiltyanalytics.comOPPORTUNITIES
Access to space has long been a cornerstone of U.S. policy, and trends are aligning to make space access
increasingly important to our nation’s security, industrial base, and continued technology leadership.
These trends include:
• ADVANCES IN ROCKET DESIGN AND REUSABILITY THAT MAKE ACCESS TO
SPACE MORE RELIABLE, COST-EFFECTIVE, AND AVAILABLE.
• RECOGNITION THAT SPACE HOLDS TREMENDOUS PROMISE FOR IMPROVING
THE UNDERSTANDING OF OUR PLANET AND TRANSFORMING THE WAY
WE COMMUNICATE AND ENGAGE IN COMMERCE, BOTH IN THE U.S. AND
GLOBALLY.
• GROWING INTEREST IN SPACE TOURISM IS EXPECTED TO LEAD TO AN
INCREASED NUMBER OF LAUNCHES ALONG WITH ADVANCES IN SAFETY
AND RELIABILITY FOR HUMAN SPACEFLIGHT.
• MAJOR COMMITMENTS TO SPACE MISSIONS BY OTHER NATIONS, BOTH
ALLIES AND ADVERSARIES, THAT WANT TO EXPLOIT SPACE-BASED
OPPORTUNITIES TO SERVE THE INTERESTS OF THEIR COMMERCIAL AND
GOVERNMENT SECTORS.
U.S. launch activity, which had fallen off to an average of 17 launches annually from 2001 to 2010,
has seen a strong resurgence in recent years, culminating in 36 vertical orbital launch attempts in 2020,
including 24 launches by SpaceX alone.
In addition to its industry-leading flight rate, SpaceX has also been instrumental in inspiring a renewed
interest in the launch sector, including nearly three dozen U.S. launch startups and dozens more
internationally. Underpinning this flurry of startup activity, market forecasters are projecting unprecedented
growth in launch activity, driven by LEO broadband megaconstellations (30,000+ satellites), more than
60 “little LEO” constellations, and an upsurge in cislunar, lunar, and planetary missions.
1
https://www.faa.gov/space/licenses/
15CHALLENGES
Current U.S. spaceport infrastructure, regulations, and air traffic control procedures are likely
insufficient to meet forecasted launch demand. In fact, the U.S could face significant launch
constraints even if a fraction of new launch vehicles currently in development make it to market.
As of June 30, 2021, the FAA was forecasting 40-56 licensed and permitted launch and reentry events in FY21 –
horizontal, experimental, and vertical launches – including those from Rocket Lab’s Mahia, New Zealand launch
site (but excluding government launches, which are not licensed).
The FAA’s forecast stands in stark contrast to the actual historical launch rate over the past 40 years, which has
averaged 26 launches per year, with a peak launch rate of 43 launches in 1997. Notably, 97% of these launches
have taken place from only two launch sites, Cape Canaveral spaceport and Vandenberg Space Force Base.
16 www.quiltyanalytics.comBased on the number of new and anticipated launch vehicles expected to enter the market in the next
four years, this capability gap could grow more severe over time, even recognizing the fact that launch
providers are overoptimistic both in timing and launch rate. For example, SpaceX initially projected
a Falcon 9 launch tempo of 30-40 launches per year in 2018 but is only now hitting this rate in 2021.
Likewise in 2014 Rocket Lab projected 52 launches per year by 2016 but only achieved one-fourth of
this launch rate in 2020.
But even if we discount some of the more ambitious projections, anticipated launch activity could exceed
the 40-year historical peak (43/year) by a factor of three to five times by 2025. And this forecast explicitly
excludes the ambitions of Astra Space (~300/year), Phantom Space (~125/year), and SpaceX with Starship
(multiple launches per day).
---------------------- Payload Capacity to LEO ----------------------
Micro Small Medium Heavy Super Heavy
50-500 kg 500-2,000 kg 2,000-10,000 kg 10,000-50,000 kg 50,000+ kg
Northrop
Relativity
Antares
Terran R
Rocket Lab
Neutron
SpaceX
Falcon Heavy
ULA Vulcan
ABL RS1
Firefly Beta
Firefly Alpha
Relativity
Rocket Lab
Electron
SpaceX
Falcon 9
40-Year Avg
Blur Origin
New Glenn
Terran 1
17OUR NATION’S CONTINUED LEADERSHIP IN SPACE MAY WELL BE DETERMINED BY WHETHER U.S.
LAUNCH CAPACITY CAN BE EXPANDED RAPIDLY ENOUGH TO MEET ANTICIPATED DEMAND. WHILE
GROWING OUR LAUNCH CAPACITY THIS DECADE IS ACHIEVABLE, THERE ARE SEVERAL GEOGRAPHIC
AND LOGISTICAL CONSTRAINTS THAT WILL MAKE SUCH AN EFFORT EXTREMELY CHALLENGING,
MOST NOTABLY:
Due to the inherent performance limitations of Since the 1960s, Cape Canaveral is responsible for ~96%
horizontal launch, the future space economy will be of all launches to equatorial and inclined orbits, and
dependent on vertical launch. However, there are only 100% of all launches to GEO from the U.S. The only
five FAA-licensed vertical launch sites located in the U.S. other East Coast launch site, the Mid-Atlantic Regional
(plus SpaceX’s private Boca Chica spaceport). Spaceport, has conducted 39 launches since 1957,
primarily to LEO.
All of these sites are strategically placed adjacent to
large bodies of water or in remote locations (Spaceport Two launch sites (Vandenberg and Pacific Spaceport
America) due to the fact that vertical launch vehicles Complex – Alaska) provide ready access to polar
drop one or more stages downrange, creating a hazard orbits but have been hamstrung in recent years by
to life and property in the drop zones. environmental and operational restrictions (i.e., the
requirement to evacuate downrange West Coast oil rigs).
Although the FAA has licensed numerous inland
spaceports, these sites cannot support vertical launch The FAA’s paper-based launch licensing system is
unless the U.S. is willing to accept the risks associated cumbersome, contributing to market confusion and
with the uncontrolled reentry of rocket bodies into launch delays that cascade across commercial and
populated areas (which we believe is highly unlikely). defense customers.
The one possible exception is Spaceport America, which Efforts to establish all-new vertical launch sites
abuts a large, restricted airspace associated with White have historically encountered resistance from
Sands Missile Range. This site could theoretically be environmentalists and local citizenry. SpaceX’s Boca
used for orbital launch, but only if carried out by a Chica launch site required about eight years from initial
reusable vehicle where the first stage returns to the plans to the first experimental launch, and an effort to
launch pad. This flight profile would inevitably penalize develop a new launch site in Camden, GA, has been
the vehicle’s launch performance and could also ongoing since 2012.
compel a substantial insurance premium.
IMPLICATIONS
For an industry accustomed to overcoming “rocket science” challenges, the simple issue of spaceport access may seem like
a routine matter, but it could singlehandedly throttle the industry’s long-term growth rate if not properly addressed and
resolved. Fortunately, both the Space Force and the FAA are cognizant of these challenges and taking steps to expand the
domestic flight rate.
At Cape Canaveral, modernized range equipment and the implementation of automatic flight termination systems are
expected to boost the site’s flight rate to 48 times per year on an interim basis, and perhaps twice per day in the long run.
Likewise, the FAA is proposing streamlined (Part 450) launch and reentry licensing requirements, and just began using its new
Space Data Integrator (SDI), a tool that is intended to provide air traffic controllers and pilots with near-instant information on
launch activities, reducing the size and duration of airspace restrictions.
While these efforts should enable the FAA to support a two- to three-fold increase in the annual launch cadence, the U.S. will
still remain precariously dependent on a handful of key spaceports – a dependency that, if not resolved, will undermine U.S.
interests strategically and commercially in the next decade.
18 www.quiltyanalytics.comORBITAL TRANSFER
VEHICLES
OVERVIEW
Orbital Transfer Vehicles (OTVs) are propulsive spacecraft designed to ferry satellites to their intended destinations in
space after separation from a launch vehicle. OTVs can deliver spacecraft to a variety of Earth orbits or to more distant
locations such as Lagrange Points, cislunar space, or interplanetary locations.
The space industry has sporadically pursued with OTV concepts for decades, from NASA’s 1960s Space Transportation
System to Lockheed Martin’s 2015 Jupiter space tug. None of these concepts advanced very far due to high technology
costs and limited market demand for large orbital payload transfers. This dynamic has shifted dramatically in recent
years as the explosive growth of the smallsat industry, coupled with the growing popularity of rideshares, produced a
flood of innovation and new entrants
into the OTV market. Commercial Orbital Transfer Vehicles in Development
PRIMARY SPACE TUG LAUNCH
COMPANY LOCATION BUSINESS NAME DATE
In total, more than a dozen
companies, mostly located in the UNITED STATES
U.S. and Europe, have introduced Smallsat propulsion/
Atomos Space Colorado TBA 2022
OTVs
an OTV product in just the past five
Smallsat propulsion
years. Most of these companies are Bradford Space New york Square Rocket TBA
and components
specialists in satellite propulsion, Space Utility
Firefly Texas Launch provider 2022
Vehicle
rideshare aggregation and/or launch
Launcher California Launch provider Orbiter 2022
vehicle production.
Smallsat propulsion/
Momentus California Vigoride 2021/2022
OTVs
As of mid-2021, only three of Moog New york Component supplier Sl-Omv 2022
these companies have successfully Northrop Mission Extension
Virginia Defense contractor 2020
demonstrated OTVs in orbit – Grumman Vehicle
Spaceflight, D-Orbit, and Rocket Lab Rocket Lab California Launch provider Kick Stage 2018
– but more than a dozen could reach Spaceflight Washington Rideshare aggregator Sherpa January 2021
orbit within the next three years. Starfish Space Washington OTVs Otter 2023/2024
(Note: Northrop Grumman’s MEV-1
REST OF WORLD
satellite servicing vehicle is discussed
ArianeGroup France Rocket manufacturer Astris 2024
in the OSAM section of this report).
Smallsat propulsion September
D-Orbit Italy In-Orbit Now
and components 2020
Exolaunch Germany Rideshare aggregator Reliant 2023
Exotrail France Smallsat propulsion Space Van 2024
Lúnasa Space United kingdom OTV Via 2023
Rocket Factory
Germany Launch provider Rfa Orbital Stage TBA
Augsburg
Skyrora United kingdom Launch provider TBA TBA
Space Machines
Australia OTVs Optimus 2022
Company
19OPPORTUNITIES
Nascent OTV operators are currently pursuing a market niche serving smallsat customers, but most if
not all have plans to expand beyond last-mile transportation services. The following attributes position
OTVs as an enabling technology for diverse in-space business lines:
AGILITY MULTI-MISSION CAPABILITIES
OTVs use smaller engines than rocket upper stages, The longer life of an OTV also opens up new types
enabling the execution of more versatile orbital of in-space logistics services, such as refueling,
insertion maneuvers. This includes precise changes assembly, debris removal, and more. Many OTV
in orbital attitudes and inclinations for individual companies have roadmaps that include one or more
satellites and for constellations, deploying satellites of these additional services.
in different orbital rings (planes), and populating an
orbital plane at a set altitude. We expect OTVs will find healthy utility by extending
the satellite rideshare business as smallsat operators
make use of the opportunity for increased orbital
DURATION insertion accuracy. OTV operators will initially
OTVs can operate for months or years in space,
focus on demonstrating their smallsat deployment
whereas a typical rocket upper stage is only designed
services and gaining heritage on critical hardware,
to run on battery power for several hours until
especially propulsion.
a mission is completed. As such, OTVs can function
as hosting platforms for sensors and other payloads.
Frontrunner OTV companies are seeking to quickly
For large deployments of smallsats, telemetry-hosted
reach a regular launch cadence of at least three to
payloads can support spacecraft identification
five launches per year. Some launch companies
and critical Launch and Early Operations Phase
developing OTVs are leveraging vehicle-agnostic
(LEOP) activities.
designs, decoupling OTV programs from new
launch vehicle development to boost their flexibility
and viability.
WE EXPECT OTV COMPANIES TO GAIN FUNCTIONALITY OVER THE COURSE
OF THE DECADE VIA THE FOLLOWING UPGRADES/DEVELOPMENT PATHS:
FIVE YEARS TEN YEARS
Multipurpose OTVs with robotic extensions for services
Increased carrying capacity to accommodate
including in-space manufacturing, repair,
deploying larger microsats.
and active debris removal.
Deep-space OTVs optimized for cislunar and interplanetary
Larger power supplies to support hosted payloads missions (radiation-hardened components, larger
for TT&C, SSA, and other applications. propellant tanks, etc.).
Matured subsystems to support multi-year operations
Long-duration OTVs running five to 10+ year missions,
around Earth, plus upgrades for lunar and
possibly supporting fuel depots.
interplanetary travel.
20 www.quiltyanalytics.comCHALLENGES
By their very nature, OTVs are dependent on the health of the smallsat market, which appears poised for rapid growth
in the years ahead. Nonetheless, OTV manufacturers will face two direct market challenges over time: (1) onboard
spacecraft propulsion and (2) dedicated small launch vehicles. Both alternatives could be considered a near-direct
substitute for OTVs, although each approach has distinct benefits and drawbacks.
Cubesats rarely carry onboard propulsion, and when Based on current launch prices, the combined cost of an OTV
they do it is generally used for basic maneuvering and and a rideshare are likely less expensive than a dedicated
end-of-life deorbiting, not high-energy maneuvers launch or onboard propulsion. If these technologies manage
(i.e., orbit raising or plane adjustments). OTVs can to significantly improve their price/performance, however,
address these latter requirements, but if the service is demand for OTV services could suffer.
too costly, satellite manufacturers may elect to install
larger, more capable propulsion systems to perform To defend against these challenges, OTV manufacturers
these functions. could add new capabilities such as robotics or expand
deeper into space to serve the GEO market. Both of these
Small, dedicated launch vehicles represent yet another strategies, however, entail risk, including the need to
threat to the OTV market. Although typically more upgrade from COTS to radiation-hardened components, and
expensive than a rideshare opportunity, small launch the uncertainty of still-developing markets such as active
vehicles can place satellites directly into their intended debris removal, OSAM, and life extension.
orbit, thus saving both fuel and time.
SHERPA-F/X OTV
SOURCE: SPACEFLIGHT
INDUSTRIES
IMPLICATIONS
OTVs have emerged as a multipurpose platform that could
mark the beginning of a much broader in-space transportation
economy. While early OTV services are primarily focused on
taxiing spacecraft in low-Earth orbit, future OTVs are already
being designed for a wider range of services. These services
could include debris removal, spacecraft inspection, fuel
delivery, or operating as an orbital testbed.
With OTV efforts in their infancy, it is unclear how robust the
OTV business case is as a standalone last-mile service. Most
OTV companies have additional sources of revenue, such as
selling components or offering rideshare or launch services,
and are using OTVs as an expansion strategy. Their early
success growing beyond the smallsat market will determine
how much capability OTVs gain in the years to come.
Finally, the ability to adapt to changing market needs will be a
key competitive factor amongst the many companies entering
the market. Not all will succeed, but those that do could
spur demand for adjacent services (for example, propellant
depots), thereby helping to foster a healthy and thriving
cislunar economy.
21ON-ORBIT SERVICING,
ASSEMBLY, AND
MANUFACTURING
OVERVIEW
On-orbit Servicing, Assembly, and Manufacturing, or OSAM, encompasses a broad range of technologies used to
produce and/or sustain off-world assets. OSAM activities generally fall into one of three categories: (1) manufacturing,
servicing and assembly of hardware in orbit, (2) building products in space for return to Earth, and (3) In-Situ Resource
Utilization (ISRU). This report focuses solely on the first category, as the latter two categories are unlikely to scale
commercially for many years.
OSAM capabilities are not new, but until recently were exclusively carried out by NASA and the DoD. The first recorded
OSAM activity occurred in 1973 when astronauts conducted a spacewalk to deploy a sunshade and a stuck solar array
on the Skylab space station. Later missions to fix the Solar Maximum Mission in 1984 and the Hubble Space Telescope
throughout the 1990s and 2000s showcased how astronauts could conduct complex repairs in space. Crewed repairs
eventually gave way to robotics, most notably MDA Corp.’s Dextre and Canadarm2, which demonstrated how robotic
systems could support in-space assembly and refueling.
Commercial interest in the OSAM market eventually began picking up during the 2010s. In 2011, MDA announced a
$280 million agreement with Intelsat to service and refuel Intelsat’s satellites, but the agreement was scrapped due to
regulatory pushback. Despite the setback a number of companies, including Orbital ATK, Effective Space, and Skycorp,
continued investing in OSAM technology. In 2020, these efforts finally culminated in the world’s first successful
commercial OSAM mission when Northrop Grumman’s Mission Extension Vehicle (MEV) paired up with an Intelsat
satellite in GEO to provide station-keeping services (Northrop Grumman purchased Orbital ATK in 2018).
22 www.quiltyanalytics.comOPPORTUNITIES
All spacecraft, regardless of purpose, orbit, or Meanwhile, robotics has been regularly used in space
manufacturer, must adhere to two critical design criteria: since the U.S. Shuttle program but remains costly and
(1) they must be sized to fit within the diameter of a limited in adoption. U.S. heavyweights Lockheed Martin
rocket’s payload fairing, and (2) they must be ruggedized and Maxar Technologies have contributed robotic
to withstand the g-forces, acoustics, and vibration arms to several NASA space exploration missions,
experienced during the violent transit to space. demonstrating capabilities that could be reapplied to
in-space manufacturing and in-situ resource utilization.
But what if it were possible to manufacture spacecraft and Northrop Grumman plans to build on the success of
structures on orbit rather than transporting them to orbit? its Mission Extension Vehicles with the future “Mission
The obvious answer is that traditional design limitations Robotic Vehicle,” which will use robotic arms to attach
could be entirely avoided, thus enabling structures to smaller Mission Extension Pods to satellites. Airbus in
be produced in new and novel ways. Two technologies July announced installation of the European Robotic
leading this revolution are 3D printing and robotics. Arm it built onto the Russian Nauka ISS module, which is
planned to launch later this summer.
Currently, there are only two U.S. companies, Made In
Space and Tethers Unlimited, that have successfully 3D When paired together, robotics and 3D printing could help
printed spacecraft hardware in orbit. Both companies create new in-space manufacturing products and services.
were recently acquired (by RedWire and Amergint, Key amongst the current applications would include
respectively), providing some indication that investors building solar arrays, deployable booms, reflectors, and
expect the OSAM market to gain traction in the near term. radiators, with an eye toward more comprehensive
manufacturing once components gain heritage.
Notable OSAM-skilled companies
Life In-Space 3d Elements Of In-Space Logistics
Companies Extension Printing Robotics And Manufacturing Market
Astroscale • ― •
OrbitFab • ― ―
Voyager (Altius) • ― •
RedWire (MIS) ― • •
Amergint (Tethers) • • •
Ultra Tech Machinery ― • •
Techshot, Inc. ― • •
MDA Corp. ― ― •
Maxar Technologies • ― •
Lockheed Martin ― ― •
Northrop Grumman • ― •
Airbus D&S ― ― •
Honeybee Robotics ― ― •
• = has ― = does not have
23IN-SPACE ASSEMBLY
Much like with 3D printing in space, self-assembling satellites have the potential to avoid
volume constraints associated with rocket payload fairings. Self-assembling satellites can
be divided into two categories: monolithic satellites with attachable elements and “satlets”
that combine to form a larger spacecraft.
Monolithic satellites would use robotic arms and/or 3D printers to assemble partially or
completely once launched. NASA’s OSAM-1 mission will test a series of technologies for
assembling monolithic satellites in orbit. While OSAM-1’s primary mission is refueling the
Landsat-7 satellite, the servicer will also carry a robotic arm from Maxar Technologies and a
fabricator from Tethers Unlimited. Maxar’s Space Infrastructure Dexterous Robot (SPIDER)
arms will demonstrate in-space assembly and manufacturing, and will support Tethers
Unlimited’s MakerSat in manufacturing a carbon fiber composite boom. NASA expects
delivery of OSAM-1 to its Goddard Spaceflight Center in 2022.
The satlet approach uses small, self-contained mini-satellites that link together to form a
larger spacecraft. Each satlet has components to support basic functions like power and
communications, providing redundancy in the event of failures.
COMMERCIAL MODULAR SATELLITE ARCHITECTURES IN DEVELOPMENT
NovaWurks/Saturn Satellite Systems
Developed with the aid of DARPA, NovaWurks’
Hyper Integrated Satlets (HISats) will be used to
build “small GEO” satellites for Saturn Satellite
Systems, which acquired NovaWurks in 2019 to
gain access to the technology. Although initially
focused on the small GEO market, the technology
can address a number of market applications.
AST Space Mobile
For its constellation of 168 satellites, AST
SpaceMobile plans to use “micron” spacecraft
that link together in space to form large
telecommunications satellites. Each micron
is essentially a mini-satellite, using one side
to communicate to Earth with a phased-array
antenna and its other side to generate power
with solar cells. Built by Japanese supplier
NEC, the microns link to a central chassis from
NanoAvionics that acts as the control unit.
24 www.quiltyanalytics.comCHALLENGES
Like any emerging market, the OSAM market faces the classic chicken and the egg problem of convincing potential
customers to commit to a service that does not currently exist. Fortunately, this holding pattern is slowly beginning
to dissolve as NASA actively contracts tech demos with a handful of well-capitalized space companies, signalling their
commitment to the market. Still, the following challenges remain:
LEO VS. GEO SCALABILITY
Large GEO satellites have been the mainstay Key OSAM technologies, including robotics
of the satellite industry since it first emerged. and 3D printing, remain expensive and rare
Designed to last ~15 years and costing up to technologies that can only address premium
several hundred million dollars, these satellites market applications today. These technology
represent an ideal market for OSAM services. providers must identify and capitalize on
In more recent years, however, the industry higher-volume market opportunities that
has shifted dramatically toward proliferated lead to a virtuous price/volume cycle, or they
LEO constellations comprised of hundreds could become forever trapped as providers of
or even thousands of “throw-away” satellites. expensive, bespoke test equipment.
Should this trend continue, long-term demand
for OSAM services could wane dramatically. SPACE ENVIRONMENTAL RISKS
Robotics, 3D printers and other hardware
CUSTOMER BUY-IN have different challenges in space compared
As it stands today, satellites are not designed to their terrestrial counterparts. Some of the
for servicing, and the industry is yet to settle on unique environmental challenges that must
the standards for attachment points, refueling be overcome include microgravity, vacuum
ports, and other service-friendly features conditions, steep temperature changes, high
needed to advance the market. Even with the radiation levels, and solar eclipses.
adoption of these standards, service-ready
satellites won’t launch for at least three years
and may not require servicing for another
decade.
IMPLICATIONS
OSAM technologies are at the beginning of commercial adoption, but progress remains slow. The industry’s transition
to smallsats and multi-orbit architectures has weakened the business case for some services, but expansion into
cislunar space could create new sources of demand.
Specialized satellites and other high-value assets will find utility from OSAM technologies. Companies are poised to
expand from demonstrations and early services to more robust OSAM capabilities, but major transitions like moving
from component production to full spacecraft manufacturing in orbit are likely still several years away.
25ORBITAL REFUELING
OVERVIEW
The "tyranny of the rocket equation" represents the single greatest obstacle to unencumbered human space travel.
This mathematical axiom asserts that 85-90% of a launch vehicle’s mass must be comprised of fuel, leaving at most
~2% of the total mass for the actual payload going to orbit. Or, as author Robert A. Heinlein put it, "get to low-Earth
orbit and you're halfway to anywhere in the solar system." Halfway, that is, with a near-empty fuel tank.
The implications of this reality are evident throughout the space industry. In order to save fuel, many GEO satellite
operators elect to perform orbit raising using electric propulsion even though this choice delays the satellite’s
operational service date (and revenue generating capability) by several months. EEven so, an estimated ~85% of all
GEO satellites are retired not from hardware failures, but simply because they ran out of the fuel needed to maintain
their orbital slot. The implications for deep space missions are even more acute.
Absent the development of nuclear propulsion, chemically propelled rockets will remain the key means of reaching
orbit for the foreseeable future. Consequently, efforts focused on storing, transferring, and creating fuel resources in
orbit should arguably be viewed as a key investment priority.
26 www.quiltyanalytics.comOPPORTUNITIES
The concept of orbital refueling has not always been warmly received. When satellite operator Intelsat announced
in 2011 that it signed a $280 million contract with MDA to refuel and service its satellites on orbit, David Thompson,
the CEO of (satellite builder) Orbital Sciences joked that Orbital would consider welding shut the fuel caps on its
satellites. Thompson eventually reversed course and spearheaded the development of the world’s first commercial
satellite servicing vehicle (the now-Northrop Grumman MEV-1), albeit with an approach that externally controls a
satellite’s movement as opposed to direct refueling.
Nonetheless, interest in orbital refueling has continued to grow in recent years, propelled by a growing
acknowledgement that the technology will play a critical in the future space economy. Key benefits of orbital
refueling include:
COST SAVINGS. REDUCED SPACE DEBRIS
Refueling a perfectly functioning satellite Theoretically, the presence of a robust
is cheaper than replacing it, if fuel can be fuel depot architecture would discourage
delivered at a sufficiently attractive price. today’s “throw away” satellite culture,
prompting satellite operators to refuel and
MOBILITY AND re-use their existing satellites rather than
MANEUVERABILITY launching new satellites. In addition, fuel
Unencumbered by fuel constraints, satellites depots would significantly lower the cost of
would have increased flexibility to change active debris removal, thus prompting more
their orbit or inclination to optimize revenue companies to participate in the market.
generating opportunities. From a military
perspective, increased maneuverability IN SITU RESOURCES
greatly increases a satellite’s ability to Any effort to create a sustained human
defend against hostile actions. presence off-planet will require the
exploitation of local resources, including
ASSET RECOVERY the ability to create, store, and transfer fuel.
Launch vehicles sometimes experience Lessons learned from servicing satellites
partial failures that leave a satellite can eventually be applied to future in situ
stranded in the wrong orbit. If not deemed efforts.
a total loss, these satellites can sometimes
be raised to their targeted orbits using DEEP SPACE
onboard thrusters, but the maneuver Due to the tyranny of the rocket equation,
typically reduces the satellite’s effective life large-scale interplanetary missions are
by several years. With orbital refueling, effectively impossible without orbital
these satellites could be returned to their refueling.
full service life.
27Echoing this final point, NASA has taken an increasingly active role in supporting orbital refueling research,
with a particular emphasis on cryogenic (i.e., supercooled) systems. Nearly 70% of the agency’s October 2020
Tipping Point contract awards were directed at cryogenic fluid management technology demonstrations:
2020 NASA Tipping Point Cryogenic Contract Awards
COMPANY AWARD AWARD FOCUS
Small-scale flight demonstration of
a complete cryogenic oxygen fluid
management system. As proposed, the
Eta Space
$27 M system will be the primary payload on a
Merritt Island, Florida Rocket Lab Photon satellite and collect
cryogenic fluid management data in orbit for
nine months.
In-space demonstration mission using
liquid hydrogen – the most challenging of
Lockheed Martin the cryogenic propellants – to test more
$89.7 M than a dozen cryogenic fluid management
Littleton, Colorado
technologies, positioning them for infusion
into future space systems.
Large-scale flight demonstration to transfer
SpaceX 10 metric tons of cryogenic propellant,
$53.2 M specifically liquid oxygen, between tanks on a
Hawthorne, California
Starship vehicle.
Demonstration of a smart propulsion
United Launch Alliance cryogenic system, using liquid oxygen and
hydrogen, on a Vulcan Centaur upper stage.
(ULA) $86.2 M The system will test precise tank pressure
Centennial, Colorado control, tank-to-tank transfer, and multi-week
propellant storage.
But not every orbital refueling technology is based on cryogenics. Startup Orbit Fab is focused on storable
propellants such as hydrazine and xenon, which are the most common propellants used by satellites in orbit
today. The first propellant tanker was launched by Orbit Fab in mid-2021. The company expects to perform
on-orbit refueling in 2022.
Orbit Fab is also spearheading the development of an orbital refueling system that can produce the nontoxic
monopropellant HTP (high-test peroxide) from nothing more than water and electricity, which they see as key to
a viable long-term storable propellant architecture. Orbit Fab has partnered with Rice University’s Wang Lab on
HTP production, and the smallsat propulsion company Benchmark Space System, which has developed a family
of HTP-based thrusters, and has successfully recruited additional partners for their vision, including Spaceflight
Industries and SCOUT. Maxar Technologies is building the OSAM-1 spacecraft (formerly Restore-L) for NASA that
will load the hypergolic fuel hydrazine into the 20+ year-old Landsat-7 satellite. Hydrazine is the most common
propellant for geostationary communications satellites and large imaging satellites in LEO.
28 www.quiltyanalytics.comCHALLENGES
Aside from a handful of government-funded demonstrations, most notably DARPA’s 2007 Orbital Express
experiment and NASA’s 2011 Robotic Refueling Mission, orbital refueling remains a largely aspirational technology.
Some of the primary challenges to greater acceptance include:
TECHNICAL IMMATURITY PRICE DISCOVERY
Cryogenic fuels are volatile and notoriously The decision to refuel vs. replace a satellite
difficult to transfer and store for extended should be a fairly straightforward economic
periods of time due to the boil off of decision once reliable fuel prices are
stored fuel. Orbit Fab has an operational established. Until the industry gains scale,
HTP tanker in orbit but has yet to launch however, prices are likely to remain high
hydrazine or xenon systems and has yet to and uncertain.
perform in-orbit refueling. Similarly, Orbit
Fab’s PEM cell technology, used to convert NETWORKING EFFECT
water into HTP, is currently at TRL 3. Similar to gas stations on Earth, an orbital
refueling network must achieve a minimum
CHICKEN AND THE EGG critical mass in order to stimulate adoption.
Orbital refueling companies face the This challenge is compounded by the fact
classic “chicken and the egg” conundrum that space is big and refueling operations
of convincing potential customers to must be conducted across multiple
adopt refueling-friendly technologies (i.e., dimensions, namely altitude, inclination
refueling ports) when the underly service and speed.
does not yet exist.
INDUSTRY STANDARDS RAFTI FUELING PORT
Closely aligned with the above point, the
Source: Orbit Fab.
industry currently lacks universally accepted
technology standards for hardware or
fuel type amongst the dozens of satellite
manufacturers and propulsion companies.
29CRYOGENIC REFUELING HAS ANOTHER LESS OBVIOUS CHALLENGE: UPPER STAGES.
At present, rocket upper stages are the primary cryogenically propelled vehicles in space, but upper stages are
only designed to last hours before running out of power and shutting down. Refueling an upper stage is only
one part of the process to make such vehicles functional. Future upper stages will need solar arrays, upgraded
batteries, thermal insulation and radiation protection, plus other upgrades so that adding fuel actually gives life to
an otherwise dead spacecraft.
THE THREE NEXT-GENERATION U.S. HEAVY LIFT VEHICLES CURRENTLY IN
DEVELOPMENT ALL HAVE PLANS FOR LONG-DURATION UPPER STAGES THAT
COULD BE REFUELED AND/OR SUPPORT CRYOGENIC FUEL TRANSFERS.
SPACEX’S starship, currently ULA continues to study a long- BLUE ORIGIN also has plans for
in prototyping, is designed as an duration cryogenic upper stage a long-duration upper stage for
upper stage capable of cryogenic despite shelving plans for its its heavy lift vehicle, New Glenn.
fuel transfer. As a fully reusable Advanced Cryogenic Evolved Scheduled to launch in 2022, New
vehicle, Starship avoids the Stage in 2019. ACES was planned Glenn’s upper stage uses two BE-
aforementioned limitations of to operate for a week or longer, 3U cryogenic engines to place
existing upper stages. Starship’s and came with a lunar lander spacecraft in orbit. Like ULA, Blue
first orbital launch is projected for concept called XEUS that would Origin has not disclosed a timeline
late 2021. have required in-orbit refueling. for a long-duration upper stage.
The company’s next-generation Blue Origin has studied reusable
Vulcan rocket, slated to launch upper stages with NASA, as well
in 2022, will use an upper stage as ways its upper stage could
called Centaur-5 that expands support diverse missions like
on the capabilities of the building space stations.
Atlas 5 rocket.
IMPLICATIONS
Propellant depot and orbital refueling concepts are not new, having been
studied extensively since the 1960s. Historically, technology hurdles
represented the primary barrier to adoption, although one could also
question the economic use case at a time when launch activity remained
rare and expensive.
No such excuse exists today. Launch costs have been lowered by an order
of magnitude, opening up space access to a broadening range of actors
and activities. And these activities will move deeper into cislunar space,
bolstering the need for orbital refueling services.
As demand gradually moves into alignment, technology hurdles are also
falling, aided by advances in materials science, manufacturing techniques,
and the ability to safely conduct rendezvous and proximity operations. The
final, and perhaps most vexing challenge is executing the business model.
Establishing a new industrial base is a daunting challenge even when macro
ORBITAL PROPELLANT DEPOT
forces are aligned in its favor (for example, electric vehicles). The challenge CONCEPT CIRCA 1971
is easily an order of magnitude more difficult when extended to outer space. source: NASA
30 www.quiltyanalytics.comYou can also read
